Rules eh?

Geronimo · 05-24-2009, 11:22 AM

Herewith my second shot.
Cheers, Dave.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

View Picture EXIF

Last edited by Geronimo; 05-27-2009 at 09:01 AM. Reason: Update II

K-9 · 05-25-2009, 09:33 AM

The first one is probably the best composition of them all, but I do not like the red effect. The only one that is really sharp is the foreground of picture 3. The rest have composition and sharpness issues. The photo subjects just don't leap out at you.

Geronimo · 05-25-2009, 02:55 PM

Thanks for your feedback, K-9!
Still much to learn.
Cheers, Dave.

Geronimo · 05-28-2009, 10:22 AM

Hi ladies and gents,
Would someone please whisper in my ear [reply or PM] what I could or 'should' be doing differently, here, if anything. 101 views and only 1 reply, is a message in itself.
Thanks, Dave.

and · 05-28-2009, 10:37 AM

I agree with the red effect in the first one, the second version is better.
I also think some shots are very soft, and I see you have a 2x tc, I dont know if you used that or not but I get the impression those are generally not the sharpest, combined with a long focal length and having to use manual focus you get a lot of possible sources for softness.

is that last image upside down?

the second image is just too soft combined with a "harsh bokeh" which is also lighter than the subject, taking away the attention.

the 4th image is both soft and also busy, meaning there is a lot of grass in focus in the foreground.

Geronimo · 05-28-2009, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by K-9

The first one is probably the best composition of them all, but I do not like the red effect. The only one that is really sharp is the foreground of picture 3. The rest have composition and sharpness issues. The photo subjects just don't leap out at you.

Originally posted by and

I agree with the red effect in the first one, the second version is better.
I also think some shots are very soft, and I see you have a 2x tc, I dont know if you used that or not but I get the impression those are generally not the sharpest, combined with a long focal length and having to use manual focus you get a lot of possible sources for softness.

is that last image upside down?

the second image is just too soft combined with a "harsh bokeh" which is also lighter than the subject, taking away the attention.

the 4th image is both soft and also busy, meaning there is a lot of grass in focus in the foreground.

I find that a certain sensitivity is required to allow myself to be critiqued; and growing from that, a realization that 'chances' are being taken, when someone offers a 'critique'. I also believe that good quality feedback is one of the most powerful aids to improvement and growth.

So my first question is to myself: "To what extent should I modify my choices of composition, based on points of preference made by a critic [not basic '101' rules, like the 'rule-of-three'], as opposed to 'factual' or technical awareness-based points of observation"? I get that the more people that offer the same point of preference, the more likely it is that the 'norm' is being represented. Which brings up the question "Do I wish to conform to the norm"?

So, 'preferences' aside, the first factual-observation was regarding sharpness. There is a definite issue here. That 2 X TC was always 'a bit' soft on my Spotmatic, in the mid seventies, so it most probably is now on my K100D S. Pictures 2, 4 and 5 were taken with the 135mm SMTC + the above TC. Yes, the 135mm lens is MF - and I do wear 'readers'! I've checked pics of detailed subjects that I've taken, with other MF setups, including with the 135mm [no TC]; and almost all have been without issue - but that does not mean that the 'odd one' may not sneak through. I always try to wind 'on-through', then 'back-through', then back again, to the mid-point of focus-clarity.

Two other points on softness/sharpness: The 135mm + 2 X TC combo gives me 270mm [+ crop-factor], which, up to now, I have been using 'hand-held'. So is there any camera shake? I doubt it. My test of old was to establish whether or not anything in the pic was clear; and if so, 'camera-shake' was not the issue. Most of these pics have something that is clear, which brings me up to my last point: The subject 135mm lens has a really shallow depth of field - it was sold to me by an international [Photographic] judge, who used it, almost exclusively for portraits, before he switched, to 'K' mount. I'm sure that I never got to a level whereby I could put it through it's paces, fully - I bought an MX two or three years later.

Yes, the last image is upside-down

! This is [mistakenly or not] a personal composition choice.

The Goose, in the second and fourth pictures, came right up to me and acted as though I was standing on his/her dining table. They were very quick shots with a 35mm equivalent of over 400mm FL, hand-held. I was very glad to get those shots [part of the beak/face seems to be in focus]; but I will not be tempted to include such pictures in any further submissions for criticism - composition was almost the last thing on my mind

.

Thank you very much for your observations, gentlemen.

K-9 · 05-29-2009, 08:02 AM

Hi, your composition is pretty good on the first shot when you take away the red effect. The rest:

Pic 2: It's just a close up of a bird and it's neck; not too exciting to a viewer and I think only showing a tiny portion of it's body hurts the picture. The neck is too skinny to fill the frame and make the shot interesting. There's a whole lot of background green going on. Just a reframing of the shot and perhaps pulling back a bit, showing maybe some slight habitat behind it, rather than an all green background.

Pic 3: It's just not interesting, although potential is there in that rocky stream. Just frame other aspects differently. Close-ups of the rock patterns or something. There aren't enough colors in the shot, or close up enough detail to make it much more than a shot of a piece of woods. The big log going across just isn't an interesting enough aspect to carry the photo.

Pic 4: Better than Pic 2, but sharpness is definitely the main issue here. Maybe could benefit from a slight zoom out to show all of the bird's beak and what it is it's pecking at (if anything at all).

Pic 5: This is just a very boring subject. Zoom in and try the red effect here and it may work (or maybe not), otherwise, a forked tree trunk just isn't anything special to look at. Spice it up by placing a nude model behind it, hiding her face and having her arms wrapped around front of it. Her navel could poke out just below the fork. That would make this very boring tree an exciting composition for sure!

As far as sharpness, teleconverters always reduce that. You could try upgrading to autofocus lenses if your eyesight becomes an issue.

MRRiley · 05-29-2009, 08:51 AM

Dave,

Just an observation... I believe the reason you didnt get many responses initially is the vagueness of your post. Its hard to tell if you are saying you "broke the rules" and want feedback on how well the photos worked in spite of that, or if you are asking if you broke any rules or whatever. Its best to be a little more specific in what your goal is and what kind of feedback you'd like, especially here in the critique forum.

I do have to say I agree with And's and K-9's critiques.

Best of luck and don't take the criticism personally.

Mike

Geronimo · 05-29-2009, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by K-9

Hi, your composition is pretty good on the first shot when you take away the red effect. The rest:

Pic 2: It's just a close up of a bird and it's neck; not too exciting to a viewer and I think only showing a tiny portion of it's body hurts the picture. The neck is too skinny to fill the frame and make the shot interesting. There's a whole lot of background green going on. Just a reframing of the shot and perhaps pulling back a bit, showing maybe some slight habitat behind it, rather than an all green background.

Pic 3: It's just not interesting, although potential is there in that rocky stream. Just frame other aspects differently. Close-ups of the rock patterns or something. There aren't enough colors in the shot, or close up enough detail to make it much more than a shot of a piece of woods. The big log going across just isn't an interesting enough aspect to carry the photo.

Pic 4: Better than Pic 2, but sharpness is definitely the main issue here. Maybe could benefit from a slight zoom out to show all of the bird's beak and what it is it's pecking at (if anything at all).

Pic 5: This is just a very boring subject. Zoom in and try the red effect here and it may work (or maybe not), otherwise, a forked tree trunk just isn't anything special to look at. Spice it up by placing a nude model behind it, hiding her face and having her arms wrapped around front of it. Her navel could poke out just below the fork. That would make this very boring tree an exciting composition for sure!

As far as sharpness, teleconverters always reduce that. You could try upgrading to autofocus lenses if your eyesight becomes an issue.

Hi K-9, thanks very much for your feedback! It is very cool information for me to receive.

I did not like the coloring of the first picture [buildings and sky seemed to be washed-out]; and my beginners PP efforts, only made it worse, so I 'saw-red'

.

Pictures 2 and 4 were really shot from the hip. I think that such pictures should be kept, only to remind me [or prompt me to learn more about] what I really need to cover-off [check-list], 'before' releasing my shutter!

Picture 4 shows me that I have to familiarize myself [again] with the depth of field variations ['extents'] of my lenses - I knew that everything would not be in focus with that shot; but took a chance on the outcome, anyway.

Picture 5 [an 'upside-down' 'pair-of-limbs-and-trunk'], looks really erotic, to me, 'as-is' [is it ok to say things like that, here?]. 147 people have viewed it, so far; with no comments [tho' you just 'nudged' the subject, prompting me to say a little more] - so maybe my mind is dirtier than most; or maybe I should, per your suggestion get that AF lens ['downgrading']

Geronimo · 05-29-2009, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by MRRiley

Dave,

Just an observation... I believe the reason you didnt get many responses initially is the vagueness of your post. Its hard to tell if you are saying you "broke the rules" and want feedback on how well the photos worked in spite of that, or if you are asking if you broke any rules or whatever. Its best to be a little more specific in what your goal is and what kind of feedback you'd like, especially here in the critique forum.

I do have to say I agree with And's and K-9's critiques.

Best of luck and don't take the criticism personally.

Mike

Hey Mike! Thanks for the 'straight-up' advice! Which I intend to take. I tried to change that darn 'header', shortly after I wrote it. I'll be more careful next time [like with my photography!

].
Dave.

K-9 · 05-29-2009, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Geronimo

...
Picture 5 [an 'upside-down' 'pair-of-limbs-and-trunk'], looks really erotic, to me, 'as-is' ...

You know, the more I thought of wrapping a model behind and around it, it finally started to look like legs and a body to me on it's own. However, at first glance it definitely did not. It just looked like a split tree. Guess it's the mood you're in at the time.

As far as "downgrading" to autofocus, I have an FA 85mm f1.4 that is certainly not a downgrade to any manual focus lens in the Pentax range. You can find good autofocus lenses, but you probably have to pay more for them. There are lots of lower quality lenses in autofocus, especially other brands and zooms.

05-28-2009, 10:22 AM	#4
Geronimo Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Moseley, Birmingham, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 42 Original Poster	It's Quiet Out Here Hi ladies and gents, Would someone please whisper in my ear [reply or PM] what I could or 'should' be doing differently, here, if anything. 101 views and only 1 reply, is a message in itself. Thanks, Dave.

05-28-2009, 01:05 PM	#6
Geronimo Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Moseley, Birmingham, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 42 Original Poster	Originally posted by K-9 The first one is probably the best composition of them all, but I do not like the red effect. The only one that is really sharp is the foreground of picture 3. The rest have composition and sharpness issues. The photo subjects just don't leap out at you. Originally posted by and I agree with the red effect in the first one, the second version is better. I also think some shots are very soft, and I see you have a 2x tc, I dont know if you used that or not but I get the impression those are generally not the sharpest, combined with a long focal length and having to use manual focus you get a lot of possible sources for softness. is that last image upside down? the second image is just too soft combined with a "harsh bokeh" which is also lighter than the subject, taking away the attention. the 4th image is both soft and also busy, meaning there is a lot of grass in focus in the foreground. I find that a certain sensitivity is required to allow myself to be critiqued; and growing from that, a realization that 'chances' are being taken, when someone offers a 'critique'. I also believe that good quality feedback is one of the most powerful aids to improvement and growth. So my first question is to myself: "To what extent should I modify my choices of composition, based on points of preference made by a critic [not basic '101' rules, like the 'rule-of-three'], as opposed to 'factual' or technical awareness-based points of observation"? I get that the more people that offer the same point of preference, the more likely it is that the 'norm' is being represented. Which brings up the question "Do I wish to conform to the norm"? So, 'preferences' aside, the first factual-observation was regarding sharpness. There is a definite issue here. That 2 X TC was always 'a bit' soft on my Spotmatic, in the mid seventies, so it most probably is now on my K100D S. Pictures 2, 4 and 5 were taken with the 135mm SMTC + the above TC. Yes, the 135mm lens is MF - and I do wear 'readers'! I've checked pics of detailed subjects that I've taken, with other MF setups, including with the 135mm [no TC]; and almost all have been without issue - but that does not mean that the 'odd one' may not sneak through. I always try to wind 'on-through', then 'back-through', then back again, to the mid-point of focus-clarity. Two other points on softness/sharpness: The 135mm + 2 X TC combo gives me 270mm [+ crop-factor], which, up to now, I have been using 'hand-held'. So is there any camera shake? I doubt it. My test of old was to establish whether or not anything in the pic was clear; and if so, 'camera-shake' was not the issue. Most of these pics have something that is clear, which brings me up to my last point: The subject 135mm lens has a really shallow depth of field - it was sold to me by an international [Photographic] judge, who used it, almost exclusively for portraits, before he switched, to 'K' mount. I'm sure that I never got to a level whereby I could put it through it's paces, fully - I bought an MX two or three years later. Yes, the last image is upside-down ! This is [mistakenly or not] a personal composition choice. The Goose, in the second and fourth pictures, came right up to me and acted as though I was standing on his/her dining table. They were very quick shots with a 35mm equivalent of over 400mm FL, hand-held. I was very glad to get those shots [part of the beak/face seems to be in focus]; but I will not be tempted to include such pictures in any further submissions for criticism - composition was almost the last thing on my mind . Thank you very much for your observations, gentlemen. Last edited by Geronimo; 05-28-2009 at 03:43 PM. Reason: minor touch-up :)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Breaking the rules	Marc Langille	Post Your Photos!	15	04-20-2009 03:31 PM
LL-80 and rules of third	yipchunyu	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	7	12-23-2008 12:19 PM
Aussie Rules	Falcons	Post Your Photos!	10	06-25-2008 06:37 AM

05-25-2009, 09:33 AM	#2
K-9 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,971	The first one is probably the best composition of them all, but I do not like the red effect. The only one that is really sharp is the foreground of picture 3. The rest have composition and sharpness issues. The photo subjects just don't leap out at you.

05-28-2009, 10:37 AM	#5
and Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,476	I agree with the red effect in the first one, the second version is better. I also think some shots are very soft, and I see you have a 2x tc, I dont know if you used that or not but I get the impression those are generally not the sharpest, combined with a long focal length and having to use manual focus you get a lot of possible sources for softness. is that last image upside down? the second image is just too soft combined with a "harsh bokeh" which is also lighter than the subject, taking away the attention. the 4th image is both soft and also busy, meaning there is a lot of grass in focus in the foreground.

05-29-2009, 08:02 AM	#7
K-9 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,971	Hi, your composition is pretty good on the first shot when you take away the red effect. The rest: Pic 2: It's just a close up of a bird and it's neck; not too exciting to a viewer and I think only showing a tiny portion of it's body hurts the picture. The neck is too skinny to fill the frame and make the shot interesting. There's a whole lot of background green going on. Just a reframing of the shot and perhaps pulling back a bit, showing maybe some slight habitat behind it, rather than an all green background. Pic 3: It's just not interesting, although potential is there in that rocky stream. Just frame other aspects differently. Close-ups of the rock patterns or something. There aren't enough colors in the shot, or close up enough detail to make it much more than a shot of a piece of woods. The big log going across just isn't an interesting enough aspect to carry the photo. Pic 4: Better than Pic 2, but sharpness is definitely the main issue here. Maybe could benefit from a slight zoom out to show all of the bird's beak and what it is it's pecking at (if anything at all). Pic 5: This is just a very boring subject. Zoom in and try the red effect here and it may work (or maybe not), otherwise, a forked tree trunk just isn't anything special to look at. Spice it up by placing a nude model behind it, hiding her face and having her arms wrapped around front of it. Her navel could poke out just below the fork. That would make this very boring tree an exciting composition for sure! As far as sharpness, teleconverters always reduce that. You could try upgrading to autofocus lenses if your eyesight becomes an issue.

05-29-2009, 08:51 AM	#8
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Dave, Just an observation... I believe the reason you didnt get many responses initially is the vagueness of your post. Its hard to tell if you are saying you "broke the rules" and want feedback on how well the photos worked in spite of that, or if you are asking if you broke any rules or whatever. Its best to be a little more specific in what your goal is and what kind of feedback you'd like, especially here in the critique forum. I do have to say I agree with And's and K-9's critiques. Best of luck and don't take the criticism personally. Mike

05-29-2009, 08:52 AM	#9
Geronimo Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Moseley, Birmingham, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 42 Original Poster	Originally posted by K-9 Hi, your composition is pretty good on the first shot when you take away the red effect. The rest: Pic 2: It's just a close up of a bird and it's neck; not too exciting to a viewer and I think only showing a tiny portion of it's body hurts the picture. The neck is too skinny to fill the frame and make the shot interesting. There's a whole lot of background green going on. Just a reframing of the shot and perhaps pulling back a bit, showing maybe some slight habitat behind it, rather than an all green background. Pic 3: It's just not interesting, although potential is there in that rocky stream. Just frame other aspects differently. Close-ups of the rock patterns or something. There aren't enough colors in the shot, or close up enough detail to make it much more than a shot of a piece of woods. The big log going across just isn't an interesting enough aspect to carry the photo. Pic 4: Better than Pic 2, but sharpness is definitely the main issue here. Maybe could benefit from a slight zoom out to show all of the bird's beak and what it is it's pecking at (if anything at all). Pic 5: This is just a very boring subject. Zoom in and try the red effect here and it may work (or maybe not), otherwise, a forked tree trunk just isn't anything special to look at. Spice it up by placing a nude model behind it, hiding her face and having her arms wrapped around front of it. Her navel could poke out just below the fork. That would make this very boring tree an exciting composition for sure! As far as sharpness, teleconverters always reduce that. You could try upgrading to autofocus lenses if your eyesight becomes an issue. Hi K-9, thanks very much for your feedback! It is very cool information for me to receive. I did not like the coloring of the first picture [buildings and sky seemed to be washed-out]; and my beginners PP efforts, only made it worse, so I 'saw-red' . Pictures 2 and 4 were really shot from the hip. I think that such pictures should be kept, only to remind me [or prompt me to learn more about] what I really need to cover-off [check-list], 'before' releasing my shutter! Picture 4 shows me that I have to familiarize myself [again] with the depth of field variations ['extents'] of my lenses - I knew that everything would not be in focus with that shot; but took a chance on the outcome, anyway. Picture 5 [an 'upside-down' 'pair-of-limbs-and-trunk'], looks really erotic, to me, 'as-is' [is it ok to say things like that, here?]. 147 people have viewed it, so far; with no comments [tho' you just 'nudged' the subject, prompting me to say a little more] - so maybe my mind is dirtier than most; or maybe I should, per your suggestion get that AF lens ['downgrading']

05-29-2009, 09:03 AM	#10
Geronimo Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Moseley, Birmingham, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 42 Original Poster	Originally posted by MRRiley Dave, Just an observation... I believe the reason you didnt get many responses initially is the vagueness of your post. Its hard to tell if you are saying you "broke the rules" and want feedback on how well the photos worked in spite of that, or if you are asking if you broke any rules or whatever. Its best to be a little more specific in what your goal is and what kind of feedback you'd like, especially here in the critique forum. I do have to say I agree with And's and K-9's critiques. Best of luck and don't take the criticism personally. Mike Hey Mike! Thanks for the 'straight-up' advice! Which I intend to take. I tried to change that darn 'header', shortly after I wrote it. I'll be more careful next time [like with my photography! ]. Dave.

05-29-2009, 09:49 AM	#11
K-9 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,971	Originally posted by Geronimo ... Picture 5 [an 'upside-down' 'pair-of-limbs-and-trunk'], looks really erotic, to me, 'as-is' ... You know, the more I thought of wrapping a model behind and around it, it finally started to look like legs and a body to me on it's own. However, at first glance it definitely did not. It just looked like a split tree. Guess it's the mood you're in at the time. As far as "downgrading" to autofocus, I have an FA 85mm f1.4 that is certainly not a downgrade to any manual focus lens in the Pentax range. You can find good autofocus lenses, but you probably have to pay more for them. There are lots of lower quality lenses in autofocus, especially other brands and zooms.